Forgot there was a dedicated thread for misrepresented cars. @Hutch_Brad SLS Electric should be 4WD. Actually it’s one of the few true 4WD cars in the game since it has an independent motor driving each wheel. Please fix this. Thanks

One of my opponents in the 70s challenge had this and I was like, that's in no way a 1970s car until I looked at the card and realized the picture is wrong. The 1977 Ford Granada 2.8i S is the Mark III for the picture. This is a correct Mark II.

Alright going to have a double post for this since it's a different incorrect stats type.This is about ride height. Some of this is probably opinion and perspective but there is one pretty obvious set of errors that was mentioned in another thread the Mustang GT Power Pack is rated LOW on ride height despite the normal 2016 Mustang GT and 2.3 having the same height (rules out suspension height change since the body is basically the same) and rated MEDIUM. Seems like someone messed up inputting data as the 2005 Ford GT which is very much a supercar i and judging by eye, probably doesn't deserve medium if relatively "practical" supercars like the Audi R8, GTR, and SLS are considered low despite being able to go over typical speed bumps without needing a lift assist or approaching at angle. Another one I would like to note is why the Ford RS200 is low but the Audi Sport Quattro remains medium, their pictures don't seem to show much difference with ride height, the RS200 might be a little lower but seems to be just as tall as the Focus and Mustangs.Here is a photo from wikipedia with it next to a Quattro S1 in a corner. Clearly it should be capable of handling similar terrain. This should also go for the Renault 5 Turbo and R5 Maxi Turbo, Subaru XT(especially this one, the photo used in game is quite obvious on how much ride height it has), Nissan Silvia 240RS, and the Alpine A310 and GTA.The rally version of the Datsun 240z also seems lifted enough to perhaps warrant medium ride height treatment especially since it is a rally car, but I would assume it's considered low for balance like the XL7. On the other hand I don't think increasing the ride height rating of the other rally cars I listed will really cause any imbalance. The RS200 with medium will pretty much just perform like it did before if you compared it to cars like the WRX STIs just without being gimped horribly on city streets. Though medium ride height might warrant it to be RQ21 like the 2016 STI instead of RQ20. There is also the Civic Type-Rs being medium while the quite visibly equal Intgras, at least for DC2 generation ones are considered low. Same goes for the both of the S2000s.There is also the Juke R being in the high section but it doesn't really seem any taller than the low GTRs. It definitely is much lower than the other Jukes. On that note the 200SX is not really a low car when stock nor are the GTR R32, R34, and the R35 even. The R33 does seem a bit low from this picture below.Also the 350z could maybe be considered medium since it has more height than the 270z and seems relatively similar to the Mustang and Camaro. There is also the G37, doesn't look low at all and not really much lower than the medium G35. And looking at other photos the G37 lacks the splitter the 370z has as well as not having the bumper reaching down the wheel as much.The Corvette C2 396 and C3 ZR1 probably should be medium height, they are definitely not low to the ground. I guess I can sum it up with medium seems to be an appropriate height for most of the sports cars(Mustangs, Camaros, 350z, 200SX, and BMW Z cars for example), grand touring cars(SLS and AMG GT being prime examples since they don't look much lower than the CLK DTM and Black Series), rally cars, and even some supercars like the Aud R8, R35 GTR, and maybe even the 2005 Ford GT.Low should only be for race cars, hardcore track cars(Lotus/KTM/Caterham), and supercars. That being said, the speed bump section of City Street areas probably could use some reworking since it seems medium height passes over a tad bit quick for the height they are. I tested a bit and the EK9 Civic Type-R(stock) passes over them around 35mph, this seems a bit too quick, maybe 20-25 is more reasonable. Meanwhile the low rated height Subaru XT(stock) has to slow down to around 15mph which I am sure it can take at also 20-25 considering it is just as tall if not taller than the Type-R. My BMW M4(1.3/1.2/1.0) took them around 35-38 and the 2016 Mustang GT (3.3/3.3/3.2) took them around 28-40. At the same time rally cars can take these bumps at much higher speeds with minimal damage so maybe they should get a bonus for those and continue at the speeds the medium rating can do now. Maybe as a durability perk.

The rally version of the Datsun 240z also seems lifted enough to perhaps warrant medium ride height treatment especially since it is a rally car, but I would assume it's considered low for balance like the XL7.

I think the Dastun 240Z should have medium ride height, the wheel base might gave away some of it, but i still would consider it a medium.

There is also the Juke R being in the high section but it doesn't really seem any taller than the low GTRs. It definitely is much lower than the other Jukes. On that note the 200SX is not really a low car when stock nor are the GTR R32, R34, and the R35 even. The R33 does seem a bit low from this picture below.

The Juke R has the same suspension setup as a GTR, so a low ride height will fit perfectly.I dont know about the R32, probably should be medium. But the R33 and R34 should be low because of the front splitter that came with it. Its lower than average sportscar if you see it in person.

I guess I can sum it up with medium seems to be an appropriate height for most of the sports cars(Mustangs, Camaros, 350z, 200SX, and BMW Z cars for example), grand touring cars(SLS and AMG GT being prime examples since they don't look much lower than the CLK DTM and Black Series), rally cars, and even some supercars like the Aud R8, R35 GTR, and maybe even the 2005 Ford GT.

I would disagree with Z28 Camaro (that thing is pretty low, especially with the splitter), GT Cars (they're lower than they look), and some of the supercar you said, especially the 2005 Ford GT. If you look on an old Top Gear challenge video, the car scrapes as much as a F430 and the Zonda.

If i have time, i would review cars one by one to post its correct specs, because there so many of them are wrong. I didnt even play the game on daily basis, but these mistakes makes me want to go and fix them I'll just response to these comments for now

While the Datsun is something I would consider a medium ride height, it doesn't need to be even stronger than it is right now. Sometimes gameplay should be taken over realism.

The photo shows that the R32 and R34 are relatively similar in ground clearance despite the splitter. Even the R35 is only a tad bit lower than the R34. The R33 is indeed quite low and should probably stay as a low car.

When I put Camaros in the sports car section I was talking about all of them except the newer Z/28. Which right now is medium despite having a lower ground clearance than the GTRs from what I can see. The Z/28 has a ground clearance of 4.3in/110mm at the splitter and 3.5in/90mm at the catalytic converter according to Chevy. The GTR R32 has a ground clearance of 5.3in and the R33 apparently is actually 5.7in according to MotoRex which didn't list the R34's or mm. According to Carfolio the R35 has a ground clearance of 4.3in/110mm matching the Z/28. This is a clear mistake if one is considered low and the other is medium.

Might as well use Carfolio and various other sites for more data.2003(2005) Ford GT: 5in/127mm -impressive despite what TG ended up showing. Also possibly inaccurate. 2012 Camaro SS: 4in/102mm -I don't think this is accurate since there really shouldn't be a way that the SS is lower than the Z/281998 200SX: 5.7in/145mm 2002 350z: 4.7in/119mm2011 370z: 4.96in/126mm1992 Acura Integra GS-$: 4.7in/120mm2000 Acura Integra Type-R 5.3in/135mm -Couldn't find results on the JDM Honda and also this may be more accurate than the GS-R's info. 2016 Acura NSX: 3.7in/94mm2015 Audi R8: 4.3in/110mm2013 Audi R8: Also 4.3in/110mm -according to one of the dealers2011 Mclaren MP4-12C: 4.7in/120mm -according to official McLaren specs pdf2017 BMW M4 4.7in/120mm -BMW USA specs pdf

Some research does show a few rather surprising results like the McLaren being higher than the Audi R8 and that is with official results.